Fat people produce fat government

I've been in Washington for three weeks now. Spending time with Howard Dean's internet campaign manager (Joe Trippi) last week has been one of the highlights and I'll write more about that soon... A lo-light was a two-and-a-half hour plane trip to Texas. I was sat next to a very large American lady who needed a good very proportion of my seat space for her own considerable bulk. America has a real obesity problem. A recent report put the annual medical costs at $75billion. Surveys have suggested the UK costs of obesity are at least £2bn pa - and rising.

One conservative American Governor - Mike Huckabee - has made the problem of excessive consumption a personal and political priority. Governor Huckabee (of Arkansas) lost over 100lbs over the course of a year in his own war against flab (see above).

Huckabee has also instituted a state-wide programme to cut obesity rates. This is what he told yesterday's New York Times (subscription required):

"I don't want to be the sugar sheriff. I don't want to be the grease police. That's not my job. But when I look at our state budget, and I see that every year our Medicaid budget is increasing by 9 to 10 percent, and I look at state employees' health plans and I see that those costs are escalating at double digits and twice the rate of inflation — as a fiscal manager, I have not only the right but frankly also the responsibility to see what can we do to improve this bottom-line cost."

Obesity is another very good example of how increasing demand for government is putting an ever higher floor under the size of our increasingly bloated government. Small government fundamentalists object to any government programmes that, for example, attempt to tackle obesity or promote healthy marriages. Calls for such modest programmes are drowned out by reactionary cries of 'Nanny state! Nanny state!'

But modest investment in preventative programmes (ideally delivered by third sector organisations) can save the taxpayer a lot of money in future years. David Cameron appears to grasp this. In his recent 'Nation of the Second Chance' speech he said the following:

"The average taxpayer now contributes at least £570 every year to the direct costs of family breakdown, but only 21p is spent on trying to save troubled relationships. Paltry sums are invested in helping couples build healthy relationships in the first place. Harry Benson of Bristol Community Family Trust... runs superb relationship courses in ante-natal clinics, civil registrars and prisons. Everyone should be given the best opportunities to form stable, healthy relationships and, especially where children are planned, to develop happy, healthy marriages."

The road to a smaller state lies in healthier marriages, less obesity and more drug rehabilitation (among other things). It is essential that small government conservatives find ways of delivering such social goods...

The US has one of the highest obesity rates in the world. And, for the developed world, one of the lowest tax and spend levels.

If anything, fat government (in the EU etc) has produced thinner people.

The point is that it has done so at an enormous cost.

As conservatives, surely we should be looking at the least expensive and most effective way to obtain results, (which, I would argue, usually does not involve government, and when it does, does so in limited ways). However, we shouldn't just assume that the government is at the route of all mankind's troubles.

In this country, that isn't left wing. Conservatives are suspicious of government. That is different from being some kind of dogmatic neo-liberal.

Roll on (or wobble on) the reduction of demand for big government programmes I say!

I work in a boarding school and this is an area I’m both very aware of and concerned by. Without leaning towards moral panic, I think in decades to come historians will look aghast at the diets of modern children, much in the same way we think it unbelievable to send children up chimneys now.

I recently had to weigh all the boys in my House for a Christmas activity. The heaviest boys were in the lowest years. Every night I see boy's gorge themselves on (essentially) chemicals, masquerading as drinks and sweets and then lose control of themselves. It is deeply worrying.

I'm increasingly convinced that we will see and pay for the effects of this food-junkie generation in years to come.

It seems bizarre that we are overly careful about the food substances we give to our children as babies but when they are growing up as small boys and teenagers we allow them to eat the most horrifically mind changing foods.

Um...I'm not quite sure what the thrust of this post was, but the tagline was about fat people, and the argument was about marriage. I can't fathom the connection.

The US obesity problem is, fundamentally, one of a lack of responsibility. The incipient Kelloggs-Viacom litigation in Massachusettes (where fat people are suing the respective companies for selling and advertising sugary cereal) is surely the apotheosis of this "I'm not responsible" culture. I agree that preventative action should be encouraged first and foremost. However, that preventative action has to put the burden back on consumers rather than on producers and distributors. Cameron's "Chocolate Orange" stunt was farcical. If I wish to purchase a half-priced Chocolate Orange, so be it. But I'm fully aware of the consequences it has, and choose them nonetheless.

There was similarly nonsensical US litigation a few years ago when a morbidly obese man attempted to sue McDonalds, in whose restaurants he had eaten in practically every day for the bulk of his adult life.

Amazingly, it was thrown out. A lone star of sanity in the crazy world of US negligence cases.

I'm with the Editor on this one. A laissez-faire attitude to the nation's health would be detrimental to us all in the end.

Pro-active steps to tackle the growing obesity crisis are what is needed in order to prevent those who would clog their arteries and bloat their bellies doing the same to our already strained public healthcare system.

As I posted on the thread responding to David Cameron's silly remarks about WH Smith/Chocolate Oranges, a good place to start would be highlighting examples of irresponsible marketing, such as children's television being flooded with commercials for junk food and sugary drinks, supermarkets (it's a different matter for convenience outlets) placing sweets and chocolate next to the checkout, and fast food restaurants offering children's toys with meals.

A laissez-faire attitude to the nation's health would mean encouraging people to take responsibility for their own mistakes. If the obese knew they weren't entitled to free healthcare they might actually make an effort to sort themselves out. I am quite willing to give money to those who have suffered through no fault of their own but I don't see why I should have to fund those who make a choice to do something silly. And before anybody brings it up, I don't think people who choose to do dangerous sports should be targetted. There's a big difference between playing rugby and sitting in McDonald's all day.

"A laissez-faire attitude to the nation's health would mean encouraging people to take responsibility for their own mistakes."

In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, we're the ones that end up paying for their greed. The growing obesity problem demostrates that people can't be trusted to take responsibility for their own mistakes in this regard and at some point, it will become necessary to step in, draw the line, say 'enough is enough' and take action (that has to be some kind of record for number of clichés used in succession) to counteract the harm these people are doing to themselves and our economy.

How do you explain the US's high obesity rate? A disgusting 65% of their population are overweight or obese.

As for rugby v McDonalds, I can't stand the sport and eat healthily. Personally I see no difference between idiots on a field somewhere and idiots in McDonalds harming themselves. (That point won't make me popular).

Rugbys fine with me. Its American football without the pads... As for MacDonalds, I cant stomach it anymore. Used to love it when I was younger but if it has to be fast food theres KFC which is much better or the local chippy. Gotta support local businesses!

"How do you explain the US's high obesity rate? A disgusting 65% of their population are overweight or obese.

As for rugby v McDonalds, I can't stand the sport and eat healthily. Personally I see no difference between idiots on a field somewhere and idiots in McDonalds harming themselves. (That point won't make me popular)."

As long as the obese Americans are paying for the healthcare that comes with their obesity then that's fine with me. However it must not be forgotten that the US health system is subsidised to a large degree by the government, which doesn't exactly help. Also note that this subsidy is directed towards the lower income groups who are disproporionately obese.

Personally I'm not a rugby fan either but I think more people would be sympathetic to those who are injured participating in a healthy sport (i.e it makes people fitter) than those who are simply partaking in a "compulsory" activity (eating) and doing it badly.

We should not, under any circumstances, ban junk food. Responsible adults must decide for themselves what to consume.

Equally, we should not allow those who have made irresponsible choices to sue anyone. We'll (grudgingly) give them free health care because we're not cold-hearted but that's as far as it goes.

As with so many other areas of life we need to re-establish the concept of shame. People who gorge themselves on fatty foods should be treated with a measure of contempt. The fear of being snubbed and being the object of ridicule is a powerful mechanism in any civilised society. Those who seek to give themselves 'a little treat' every single day are self-mutilating wankers. A huge industry has developed to feed this desire for instant luxury - Ben & Jerrys, Green & Black, Chocolate Oranges etc, etc. Just say 'no' - and point out that comfort food is for unhappy people.

"As with so many other areas of life we need to re-establish the concept of shame. People who gorge themselves on fatty foods should be treated with a measure of contempt. The fear of being snubbed and being the object of ridicule is a powerful mechanism in any civilised society. Those who seek to give themselves 'a little treat' every single day are self-mutilating wankers. A huge industry has developed to feed this desire for instant luxury - Ben & Jerrys, Green & Black, Chocolate Oranges etc, etc. Just say 'no' - and point out that comfort food is for unhappy people."

Very harsh. But also very true. People understandably don't like the idea of shame because it involves being "unkind". Unfortunately though we don't live in a perfect world and it's a small price to pay for improving the one we have.

In terms of tackling obesity, I don't see what the government can realistically do. In terms of "educating" people about healthy eating, I really don't think that's the problem. People *know* what foods are good for them, and which are bad for them, and they are consciously choosing bad foods. We can't stop them doing that. The problem is responsibility, and our people have become less and less responsible (in part due to the welfare state).

In terms of restricting advertising, I'm a believer that part of what a free society means is allowing the advertising of products that we know are bad for us. I'd prefer that to having a society in which a group of ideologues decide what was in our best interests, and what can and can't be advertised and to whom.

So it's not that I'm railing against "nanny state", I am just scepticial as to whether the government can provide any solutions to this problem that would not create more harm than good.

In terms of providing marriage counselling, in my view that has to be subsequent to fixing the tax system in favour of marriage. You can't have the state counselling people to stay together while financially discriminating against them. The first thing the state should do is see what problems it is actively causing, and stop causing them. Only after that, should it look at other measures.

There is very definitely a problem with weening people off the welfare state, and I am sensitive to that. But we should never lose sight of the fact that cutting the welfare state is the first priority, and until that is done, government initiatives will either make no difference, or be counter-productive.

By pure coincidence, I have just received the following in an email about useful tips for 2006:

"Weight watchers. Avoid that devilish temptation to nibble at a chocolate bar in the cupboard or fridge by not buying the flaming thing in the first place, you fat sod."

Seriously though, whilst stopping short of advocating a ban on junk food, there are other measures that can be taken to redress the problem, such as putting a stop to the grossly irresponsible marketing practice of promoting obesity through aggressive targetting of junk food and sugary drinks at children.

Have you ever tried to buy a breakfasr cereal that is not loaded with sugar?? Give it a go. Read the labels. The manufacturers bleat on about low fat this, low salt that, but never a peep about all the sugar they all contain with the noble exception of shredded wheat, and a couple of others. They are all SCARED of their sales falling if the general public doesnt get its sugar fix. its just as much an addiction as all the other addictive substances. it produces an insulin "bounce" which wears off quckly, then you want some more. While you are about it, check out the chinese cooking sauces. They are loaded as well. We havnt a prayer. I used to have stand up rows with the Farleys rep about his sugar loaded baby food.All the twit had to say was the mums tasted it, and they didnt like the low sugar ones. After that, I just binned all his samples and tried to get mums to buy the organic ones instead. Ive been retired 6 years, but I bet nothing has changed!